|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
Good - now we can move on to the geological eras:
"There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied. There is no connection between the number of geological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story. Do you agree with this?OR am I going to have to spend another 11 posts explaining your cherry picking and confirmation bias, to finally have you claim that no connection was implied? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Well, your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong.
We differ on whether it is I or the scientists I quoted, who claim these sources enumerate 7 events, whether they do so by using the ruler of Time, draw charts, create graphic organizers, and list seven Eras. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
Your claim that there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras is wrong. We differ on whether it is I or the scientists I quoted, who claim these sources enumerate 7 events, whether they do so by using the ruler of Time, draw charts, create graphic organizers, and list seven Eras.It is wrong, even if you try to deny having claimed it is true. And from your silence, I assume that you accept the rest of my post where I accurately describe your cherry picking.Good - we are getting somewhere at last. Your claim that there are 7 cosmological eras is wrong."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, you get the idea but Why are they lined up differently before?
they are lined up like this: That didn't really help at all. The colorful charts don't really provide much explanation for what's going on in the era so we can't really compare to what's going on in the day in the Bible. Anyways, here's a couple that I think have problems. Day 3
quote: Day three has seed and fruit bearing plants and trees emerging. You have:
quote: There were no seed nor fruit bearing plants during that time. According to wiki:
quote: Seed bearing plants didn't come about until just before the Early Cretaceous, which you have included in the Fifth Day. The Bible has sea and bird life emerging on the fifth day, not plants. So there's a discrepancy. Also, Day 7. You have this:
quote: Corresponding with this:
quote: Those don't line up at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi kofh,
kofh2u writes: In the desert, before the Torah was written down, they did this so they could use the space on the fingers for a Loci Memory System to remember the Oral Torah and keep the facts straight: How do you know when the Torah was written down? Prior to 585 BC the Hebrew alphabet was what is in my profil picture. This is the alphabet that Moses would have used to write the Torah. Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
kofh2u writes: "There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied. Good - now we can move on Yes, as you agreed for argument sake, we could choose to make the list of seven longer than the six science sources to which I referenced my assertion in Gen 1:1. We ought move on, with the understanding that "In the beginning" is in essence a 1362BC direct concrete statement that the Universe was not always there but had a beginning. The connection with the general seven (7) details we have been calling "eras", as referenced by the six science sources to which I have brought your attention, above, however, spell out what we have discovered since @ 1940AD. The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7. But let the thread show that what I have told you has been referenced by science sources regardless of your own preferences to enumerate the stages differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
How do you know when the Torah was written down? Prior to 585 BC the Hebrew alphabet was what is in my profil picture. This is the alphabet that Moses would have used to write the Torah. Are you saying Moses did not write the Torah?
WOW. You certainly inferred a lot and put an argument out against the mere claim that at some time, the Torah was, obviously, written down. I claimed that there was a time before that, around 1362BC I will specify now, when the tradition of the Jews says an Oral Torah existed. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Your claim that there are 7 (or is it 8?) cosmological eras is wrong. It is wrong, even if you try to deny having claimed it is true. Sez you to them, the science sources to which I presented references. I do not not have the inclination to entertain your argument with them. I merely demonstrate that these are not my ideas.[/B] These are science charts, graphic organizers, listings of Time relationships, and/or categorical classification of the seven events come for science source and authors with enough credentials. As is the custom in debates or discussions of this type, the sources are all that I am required to present.They are useful to back me up. But you can start a thread which questions the wisdom of these authors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Why are they lined up differently before?
What post number are you referring to? These have always been lined up the same way. However, the mention of these historical events that are measured out in the rocks as an unfolding history of the earth has progressively become a little more closely examined. back a page or so, I posted the six major rock layers and their subdivisions so we could be clear about these six evenings and mornings. You are referencing them here. "The colorful charts don't really provide much explanation for what's going on in the era so we can't really compare to what's going on in the day in the Bible."So, apparently, that is our next job, to see at what point in each of these "days" the evening ends and the morning began. I would bring your attention to a number of rather obvious points of agreement between historical events within one or another of these 6 major rock layers and what is reported to us in Genesis. Rodinia (the first Pangea-like event), mentioned in Genesis 1:9 as an event, where "all the waters under the heaven were collected together into one place" is said to occur on the "Proterozoic morning" of the third 'day.'"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The scientific grouping of these parts to the "day" is sub-divided into parts, like the dawn, morning, afternoon, and evening. Ahh, so when there are more divisions than you want you lump them together in order to get the answer you want. Arbitrary much?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
There were no seed nor fruit bearing plants during that time. Seed bearing plants didn't come about until just before the Early Cretaceous, which you have included in the Fifth Day. The Bible has sea and bird life emerging on the fifth day, not plants.
Remember that this Bible interpretation condones the theory of evolution which tells us that in one series of very early Spontaneous Generations of first life, (bacteria, explicitly), the seeds to the entire Plant Kingdom were created. With the cravat in mind, you can understand that the gradually appearance from of the more complex life forms would be historically reported throughout all the subsequent eras after the Meso/Eo-archean morning of the third "day."
(NOTE: to critics who would prefer the Six Kingdom System we must note that Genesis speaks only of Two Kingdoms, specisically mentioning only Plants and Animal.)
Does that help?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There were no seed nor fruit bearing plants during that time. Seed bearing plants didn't come about until just before the Early Cretaceous, which you have included in the Fifth Day. The Bible has sea and bird life emerging on the fifth day, not plants.
Remember that this Bible interpretation condones the theory of evolution which tells us that in one series of very early Spontaneous Generations of first life, (bacteria, explicitly), the seeds to the entire Plant Kingdom were created. With the cravat in mind, you can understand that the gradually appearance from of the more complex life forms would be historically reported throughout all the subsequent eras after the Meso/Eo-archean morning of the third "day." That's an utterly ridiculous and desperate stretch. The Bible says "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." That is not talking about bacteria, which didn't come from the land, are not "vegetation", and do not bear fruit. And this "interpretation" of your's exposes your true motive: to twist the Bible into saying anything it has to in order to maintain consistency with modern science. That's not only dishonest but its terrible theology. You're basically just lying to yourself so you can maintain your delusion of an accurate Bible. Grow up. Your theory has been falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
No. I greed to skip one era for argument's sale. Yes, as you agreed for argument sake, we could choose to make the list of seven longer than the six science sources to which I referenced my assertion in Gen 1:1.But, as long as you admit that your claims about geological eras are refuted, we can move on... ...or not.
kofh2u writes:
Have you forgotten already? The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.There are more than 7 cosmological eras! The links you provided are to geological eras - NOT cosmological eras. The Big Bang Theory is NOT connected to geological eras. So - now I have to repeat:
There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story. kofh2u writes:
And let the thread show that the only way you can support your claims about cosmological eras is by intentionally ignoring more than half of the eras. But let the thread show that what I have told you has been referenced by science sources regardless of your own preferences to enumerate the stages differently.In fact, you admitted that not only was there no connection between the cosmological eras and the number 7, but you denied claiming that there was: "nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied." Could you possibly make up your mind? There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story.Do you agree or not? Because you are currently contradicting yourself:
kofh2u writes: directly contradicts: The amazing fore knowledge of the Big Bang Beginning is interestingly revealed by those six sources as also using the favorite number of God, 7.kofh2u writes: "There is no connection between the number of cosmological eras and the number 7 nor the 7 days in the Genesis story," nor was any INTENTIONALLY implied."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Bacteria (or Archaea, for that matter) are not the "seeds to the entire Plant Kingdom" any more than they are "seeds" of animals. They are prokaryotes. Plants and animals are a couple of examples of eukaryotes, and appear to be the result of parasitisms/symbioses involving the first two. You're about a half-century behind high-school biology, kofh.
Does that help? Not significantly. Edited by Coragyps, : fix tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3519 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
kofh2u writes: Sez you to them, the science sources to which I presented references. I do not not have the inclination to entertain your argument with them. I merely demonstrate that these are not my ideas. These are science charts, graphic organizers, listings of Time relationships, and/or categorical classification of the seven events come for science source and authors with enough credentials. As is the custom in debates or discussions of this type, the sources are all that I am required to present.They are useful to back me up. The sources you have provided disprove your claim. And it is obvious you have done no further research into these matters than looking up charts using google images. You keep saying "the scientists." What scientists? What are their names, degrees, papers, peer reviewed works, ect? You can't point to a blog or present pictures that you have ADDED TO, cropped, left off relevant information in order to give incomplete information that is supposed to confirm your claim, but doesn't. We have six days of creation, yet most of the charts you present are of at least 8 eras AND the ones that are 7 are NUMBERED WRONG, with the exception of one picture that is from Time magazine showcasing a children's book. You have given zero accceptible sources that actually agree with your claim, so when others disagree with you, it has no bearing on whether the reject science, because the actual science is not even included in your argument. What you are presenting is clear to be solely your own ideas. You have given no evidence that supports your claim and the appeal to the ever more vague "scientists" with unmentioned credentials has utterly failed you. You have nothing to back you up. I call POE. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024